|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
7th February 2019, 09:52 AM | #921 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
That's not accurate and you don't know it and neither do the 4th Circuit judges. MacDonald will never get out of prison with a bunch of very bad judges on the case. This is what actually happened from a Bernie Segal affidavit about the matter:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...990-10-13.html
Quote:
|
7th February 2019, 10:51 AM | #922 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Context
The only significant fiber evidence in this case involved sourced fibers and most of the significant fibers were sourced to inmate's torn pajama top. They included fibers found in the following locations.
Master bedroom - 22 pajama fibers found on the top sheet of the master bed - 6 pajama fibers found on top of the pillow - 24 pajama fibers found under Colette's body - 3 fibers found near the left corner of the footboard - 1 fiber found near the headboard - 23 fibers found on the floor near Colette's body Kimberley's bedroom - 14 threads found under Kimberley's bedcovers - 20.5 inch yarn found on top of Kimberley's pillow - 1 yarn found under Kimberley's pillow - 3 yarns found on top of Kimberley's bed Kristen's bedroom - 1 thread found under Kristen's bedcovers - 1 yarn found under Kristen's bedcovers Additional pajama fibers were found in the following locations. - 2 pajama seam threads found on the club - 1 bloody pajama seam thread found twisted with a bloody head hair from Colette was found in the multi-colored bedspread - Several pajama fibers were found on the blue bedsheet - A pajama fiber was found under Kristen's fingernail - A pajama fiber was found on Colette's body - Several pajama fibers were found on Jeffrey MacDonald's robe What is the most logical explanation for the presence of 3 unsourced dark woolen fibers on Colette's body and 2 unsourced dark woolen fibers on the club? When Colette's bloody body and the bloody club were placed on the shag carpet in the master bedroom, fibers from the carpet adhered to Colette's body and the club. The big problem for the defense was that it was impossible to determine when those fibers were deposited on the carpet. In addition, the defense could not rule out the distinct possibility that the source of the fibers were clothing items from the MacDonald household. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
7th February 2019, 01:18 PM | #923 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Yes it is accurate!
of course I don't know that it is inaccurate because IT IS ACCURATE. The 4th Circuit Court Judges don't need to know about the dark wool fibers. Once again: 1. UNSOURCED EQUALS FORENSICALLY USELESS 2. The existence of the fibers was in the discovery material 3. The fact that the fibers were NOT brought up at trial is on the defense. 4. the government has no responsibility to point out specific evidentiary items. Of course he is not going to get out of prison because he is guilty as CONVICTED. He has had more chances then any other murderer in US jurisprudence. His last "hope" if you can call it that will be if they appeal to the US Supreme Court to have the latest appeal reviewed. However, since the onus is on the defense to prove his claims and they didn't even come close it is VERY unlikely to happen. There have not been bad judges in this case, in fact the 4th Circuit Court has bent over backwards to give inmate chances to which he was not truly entitled. As for Bernie's affidavit - it is trash! Bernie certainly wasn't going to put out an affidavit admitting he had ignored huge amounts of evidence before trial. |
7th February 2019, 04:55 PM | #924 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
|
Inquiring Minds Want To Know!
|
9th February 2019, 03:24 AM | #925 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Fred Bost believed there were never any pajama fibers found on the wooden club murder weapon and that was supposed to be the conclusive evidence to sway the jury. I agree with him. Stombaugh only said it could be, and the same with the hairs and threads. That should be explained to the 4th Circuit judges before they all start nodding off because of advanced age. This is what Fred Bost thought about the bloody head hair entwined and again I agree with him about this:
http://thejeffreymacdonaldcase.com/h...ort-study.html
Quote:
|
9th February 2019, 07:11 PM | #926 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Writing Checks That Your Specious Claims Can't Cash
Responding for the 500th time to the Landlord's specious evidentiary claims...
In 1995, MacDonald's advocates implied that something nefarious occurred with a specific evidentiary item. In preparation for the 1974-1975 Grand Jury hearings, the FBI did a forensic re-analysis of all the evidentiary items with the exception of blood typing. In 1974, Brian Murtagh hand-carried the evidence to Paul Stombaugh and when Stombaugh found a head hair twisted with a pajama seam thread, the MacDonald defense team began to ask specific questions. For example, the defense team knew that in 1970, the CID did not list a head hair twisted with a pajama seam thread. Once they discovered that Murtagh delivered the vial that contained this evidentiary item, they began to wonder whether Murtagh had manufactured this trace evidence. The documented record, however, provides a more prosaic explanation. In 1970, the CID listed two pieces of blood-soaked thread being found in the multi-colored bedspread, and designated this evidentiary item as CID Exhibit D-229. In 1974, Paul Stombaugh noted two long pieces of blood-soaked thread with one of those threads having a head hair twisted with it. Stombaugh added that the head hair had traces of blood along its shaft. Stombaugh labeled the debris as FBI Exhibit Q96, the seam thread was soaked in water to remove the hair, and the hair was then placed on a slide. Stombaugh stated in his notes that "the hair had no root, but was probably broken due to blow to head." Stombaugh then compared the hair to head hair exemplars from the MacDonald family and the hair microscopically matched the hair of Colette MacDonald. In order for the defense theory to work, Brian Murtagh would have had to have found an extraneous broken, bloody head hair from Colette, and twisted it around an extraneous bloody seam thread from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajamas. In terms of the fibers found on the club, Fred Bost never definitively stated that fibers from inmate's torn pajama top were not found on the club. What he did claim was that there was a distinct possibility that the CID and FBI misidentified these fibers. In 1970, CID chemist Dillard Browning labeled the debris found on the club as CID Exhibit E-205. Browning noted that two pajama fibers were found adhering to the club in Colette MacDonald's blood and he subsequently placed the two fibers in a vial. In 1974, FBI physical science technician Shirley Green labeled the debris from the club as FBI Exhibit Q89. Green placed the pajama fibers in a pillbox, and Paul Stombaugh later matched the fibers to the seam threads from Jeffrey MacDonald's pajama top. In 1989, the FBI took two color photographs of the seam threads in the pillbox and the photographs were labeled as FBI Exhibits 76 and 77. The documented record clearly indicates that both pajama fibers and dark woolen fibers were found on the club. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
10th February 2019, 03:37 AM | #927 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Fred Bost did say once that he believed there were never any pajama fibers on the wooden club murder weapon, but I now can't find the reference. There is an interesting letter from MacDonald himself about all this sort of thing on the internet:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...ac-rigbsy.html
Quote:
|
10th February 2019, 09:57 AM | #928 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Murtagh and Stombaugh were telling lies as a matter of course and Fred Bost understood this. This is part of what MacDonald thinks about it all and it's true:
https://medium.com/@lajp/dr-jeffrey-...s-6f09003ac918
Quote:
|
10th February 2019, 01:07 PM | #929 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
The Musings Of A Psychopath
In regards to the collection and analysis of the physical evidence in this case, the opinions and/or musings of a psychopath are worthless.
http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
10th February 2019, 06:52 PM | #930 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Tainted Legacy
It has been 20 years since I communicated with Fred Bost via letters/phone calls, and the following were his opinions regarding Judge Fox and trace evidence in this case.
JUDGE FOX: Bost attended the 1999 DNA protocol hearings and was impressed with Judge Fox's grasp of the evidence. He stated that the hairs were the most important pieces of trace evidence in this case and that Judge Fox has "finally taken the time to read the entire record." Despite the presentation of hairs allegedly found under the girls' fingernails, Judge Fox had denied MacDonald an evidentiary hearing in 1997. Bost felt that Judge Fox had since taken a hard look at the evidence and concluded that the government has gone beyond mere foot dragging in terms of complying with DNA testing. Bost stated, "Phil, the judge has finally come around." TRACE EVIDENCE: Bost stated that the unsourced hairs were the most important pieces of trace evidence in this case and that Judge Fox has "finally taken the time to read the entire record." At that time, Bost did not feel that the unsourced fibers were significant enough to garner inmate a new trial. Bost's thought process is at odds with the Landlord's slanderous claims regarding the ethics and competence of Judge Fox. This same thought process is also at odds with the Landlord's religious devotion to household debris found at 544 Castle Drive. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
11th February 2019, 03:45 AM | #931 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
That's not true. The prosecution presented false evidence and carelessly gathered evidence to the court. Fred Bost was most severe in his criticism of Stombaugh in that Hennis /Eastburn case for his inaccurate testimony. MacDonald seems to think that Congress might be able to help him if the judges and public and media and lawyers are not capable of doing it. It's just that Congress seem to be obsessed with another Berlin wall at the moment.There is a bit about all this at this website:
http://whale.to/b/dowbenko.html
Quote:
|
11th February 2019, 09:15 AM | #932 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
There seems to be a book about the Jeffrey MacDonald case by Fred Bost, who I think died in 2013, called Railroaded. This is one review of it:
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/rai...ost/1111743883
Quote:
|
11th February 2019, 12:40 PM | #933 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Yes it is true.
No, the prosecution presented carefully gathered evidence and IF someone felt the evidence was "false" the time to have brought that forth was AT TRIAL. Since the defense did not ever make such a claim it is more than a little ridiculous that you now try to do so.... So what? that is irrelevant to the case under discussion. Really? Congress cannot even create a budget to operate the federal government, what exactly to you imagine he thinks they can do? What do you imagine Congress would be able to do for inmate? |
12th February 2019, 06:41 AM | #934 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Zeszotarski filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc on behalf of MacDonald on 2/4/2019. He is essentially unhappy with the way the 4th Circuit marshaled the evidence in rendering their opinion and is throwing a tantrum and insisting that MacDonald's evidence destroyed the prosecution's entire case. roflmao!
The petition was filed exactly 45 days to the day when the decision was released. Local Rule 40(c). Time Limits for Filing Petitions. The Court strictly enforces the time limits for filing petitions for rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc. The Clerk's Office will deny as untimely any petition received in the Clerk's Office later than 45 days after entry of judgment in any civil case where the United States, or an agency or officer thereof is a party, or 14 days after the entry of judgment in any other case. The only grounds for an extension of time to file a petition, or to accept an untimely petition, are as follows: i. the death or serious illness of counsel, or of a member of counsel's immediate family (or in the case of a party proceeding without counsel, the death or serious illness of the party or a member of the party's immediate family); or ii. an extraordinary circumstance wholly beyond the control of counsel or of a party proceeding without counsel. Petitions for rehearing and petitions for en banc rehearing from incarcerated persons proceeding without the assistance of counsel are deemed filed when they are delivered to prison or jail officials. All other such petitions are deemed filed only when received in the Clerk's Office. Some of us have been talking off-line and wonder if the Clerk is going to accept this filing since this is not a Civil action the time limit should be 14 days (at least that is what I read). |
12th February 2019, 01:44 PM | #935 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,451
|
|
13th February 2019, 04:02 AM | #936 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
To put it politely that's not true. You are lying. The police and Army CID, and even the FBI are apt to jump to conclusions. Murtagh illegally withheld the exculpatory evidence until the defense found out about it after the trial and Stombaugh and Malone made up the evidence.
There is a reasonable analysis of the way Bernie Segal and Dr. Thornton thought about the information they were given about the forensics in the case at this website by the FBI agent Madden: http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...ff_madden.html Thornton admitted that both of them, Segal and Thornton, rather complacently thought MacDonald would be acquitted and that it would have taken about six months to properly examine and test all the forensics. They were also taken by surprise when a trial date was announced, after a decision by the misguided Supreme Court. Thornton was only granted some rather inadequate lab facilities in Raleigh and no access to the lab notes of Stombaugh and Frier and Glisson or Kathy Bond, or Browning, were granted to him by Murtagh and Dupree. He was only able to concentrate on the pajama top and the bloodstains on the bedsheet which was the priority. The pajama fibers, and hairs, which later became crucial for the jury were largely ignored by Thornton. The problem with that Madden analysis is that it was not profound enough. The corrupt bias by the judges, or the lack of extremely competent judges, or the proven contempt of court and bias by the foreman of the jury, was never addressed. It was a mistrial and kangaroo court and gross miscarriage of justice. |
13th February 2019, 06:04 AM | #937 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Yes it is TRUE
No, I am not. Maybe they are but that is irrelevant to the discussions at hand. No, he did not. The courts found that nothing was withheld. The information was in the documentation provided to the defense. The FACT that the defense did not bother to completely review all of the documentation is not the fault or responsibility of the prosecution. That is a lie. The evidence was in the discovery information received by the defense. they failed to appreciate its importance and/or failed to review what was in the documentation. Too bad for them. It is not the prosecution's responsibility to point out evidentiary items to the defense. Liar, Liar, pants on fire! Complacently - good word for it - but the details are that Segal and his team did not bother to review ALL of the evidence and his ego is partly to blame. He believed that there was not much evidence so he played games and attempted to get the evidence shipped cross country knowing full well that no Judge would approve that happening. Bernie didn't review the evidence that doesn't mean it was withheld it means he didn't do his job very well. Which goes to how strong the evidence was AND points out again how idiotic Bernie was for his machinations that he KNEW would result in him having to send his forensic experts to Raleigh anyway. He should have done that at the beginning rather than play games. Still, doesn't make the evidence withheld it makes the defense BAD. Maybe inmate should have tried an appeal on insufficient counsel.... No, they were not the defense was involved in the hearings to set dates etc. Funny how in your world everyone but the mass murderer has some failing. The US Supreme Court was not misguided. LIE! He was granted access to very good and extensive lab facilities. It was not Murtagh's responsibility to provide DEFENSE experts with documentation. That was Bernie's job. Judge's don't have anything to do with the evidence physically. They make the legal calls others DO the actions. Bernie had the material, that he didn't share it with his experts is on him. PERIOD. You need to put the blame where it belongs - on inmate for slaughtering his family and on Bernie for having so much ego that he thought he'd be able to beat the government AFTER all the evidence was analyzed like he had in the Article 32 where less than half of the evidence was analyzed. Bernie's fault.... Again, Bernie's fault Only in your world are the Judges anything less than skilled and intelligent jurists, and there was no bias, inmate was PROVEN guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Your doubts are not reasonable.... No lack of competent Judges in this case. they were/are all very competent and were not taken in by the lies of inmate or the egotistical condescension of Bernie Segal. Can not have it both ways henri - either something is proven or it was never addressed. Since the Jury Foreman was not in contempt of court nor biased this is just another one of your ridiculous "unreasonable" claims.... It was an excellent trial and no mistrial. Justice was done for the victims of this case which you apparently have never figured out do not include inmate. The VICTIMS were Colette, Kimberley, Kristen, and unborn baby boy. Why do you hate them? |
13th February 2019, 06:07 AM | #938 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
Pacal - no I do not have a link to the petition at this time....IF it becomes available to me I will share it.....
we are all now waiting to see if the Clerk of the Court accepts the petition because it was submitted 31 days beyond the deadline to file (but would not be the first time that inmate filed late and the courts accepted it anyway). I will let you all know when/if I hear anything |
14th February 2019, 12:02 PM | #939 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Sore Loser
|
14th February 2019, 01:56 PM | #940 |
Scholar
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 99
|
Rather nicely written -- much better than some earlier inmate-related filings -- but based almost completely on hearsay. He relies on people to whom Stoeckley said assorted things as "proof"/"verification" that inmate is telling the truth. I don't see how hearsay can carry that kind of weight.
|
14th February 2019, 04:15 PM | #941 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Rinse And Repeat
SCOTT: The defense attempted this tactic at the 2012 evidentiary hearing and neither Judge Fox nor the 4th Circuit Court bought any of it. In essence, inmate's rotating band of lawyers have argued that 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay evidence should outweigh the mass of physical evidence that led to inmate's conviction.
Although it is nicely written, this petition ignores several prior claims put forth by the defense, and the tone is akin to a child throwing a fit. 1) Since 2009, the defense has gone back and forth on whether the 5mm hair fragment found in Kristen's fingernail scrapings was bloody. Despite the fact that Zeszotarski admitted (e.g., 2017 oral arguments) to the 4th Circuit Court that the hair fragment was not bloody, he now argues that the hair was bloody. A case of poor short-term memory or is Zeszotarski simply grasping at straws? 2) Zeszotarski's obsession with Judge Dupree's letter ignores the fact that he denied inmate a new trial not once, but twice. These denials occurred several years after he constructed that letter. 3) Zeszotarski's grandiosity is in full display when he states that inmate challenged the entirety of the government's case. For the past 40 years, the defense has carefully picked their evidentiary battles, and remained silent on several inculpatory evidentiary items and/or issues. Examples include the bloody fabric impressions found on the blue bedsheet, the pajama fibers found under bodies/bedcovers/under Kristen's fingernail, and the lack of definitive evidence (e.g., sourced DNA, hairs, fibers, prints) of hippie home invaders. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
15th February 2019, 03:12 AM | #942 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
The point is which you don't seem to be able to get into your head is that as MacDonald has said "we were never allowed to do our own testing" in the case. MacDonald accuses Murtagh of obstruction of justice and perjury and that's right judgment. The 4th Circuit judges and Byn need to wake up to this fact:
http://wildernessoferror-data.s3.ama...nse%20Team.pdf |
15th February 2019, 04:02 AM | #943 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
|
15th February 2019, 08:17 AM | #944 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 483
|
The point you don't get is Jeffrey Macdonald slaughtered his wife and children on 17 February 1970 and no amount of name-calling and mud-slinging from him, you and any other poor soul taken in by the Inmate's lies is going to change that fact.
PS: Byn is more awake on the facts in REM sleep than you will ever be. |
15th February 2019, 09:23 AM | #945 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
THE POINT (that you cannot seem to get into your head) IS THAT INMATE WAS ALLOWED THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO TESTING, THAT BERNIE SEGAL SQUANDERED THE OPPORTUNITY IS NOT ACTIONABLE BY INMATE.
Murtagh did not obstruct justice nor did he perjure himself. UNLIKE INMATE WHO HAS PERJURED HIMSELF AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY. The 4th Circuit Court has no need to be "aware" of the machinations and missteps of the defense. The time to bring forth arguments about what was or was not allowed pre-trial would have been in the initial appeal and inmate would have needed (I believe) to claim ineffective counsel. (might have had a point there) but again, the fact that Bernie Segal CHOSE to attempt requests for evidence transfer across country rather than sending in his experts right away IS NOT ACTIONABLE. Also, it is NOT the responsibility of the prosecution. The materials and evidence were made available, as was sufficient lab space, and the DEFENSE FAILED TO TAKE THE APPROPRIATE ACTION. btw BYN is very well aware of the FACTS and she DOES NOT RELY on the misrepresentation, cut and paste, revisionist history crap as put forth in FJ or WOE. BYN reads and relies on the documented, certified, TRUTHFUL case documents. |
15th February 2019, 09:50 AM | #946 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
That's a lie and you and the 4th Circuit judges need to read the hard documentary evidence with regard to the matter. Trying to get Murtagh and Dupree to disclose the exculpatory evidence was like dealing with a brick wall for Segal and Thornton, and this has been explained in various affidavits since the trial. If you are accused of having your pajama fibers on a murder weapon and this is used to sway a jury at a trial, then your defense lawyers should be told in advance of your trial what exactly you are being accused of, and the evidence to back it up, and if it is made up. That never happened thanks to Murtagh and Dupree.
The writer of this blog had the right idea about the MacDonald case, though it may lack comprehensive vision: http://bret1111.blogspot.com/2010/12...macdonald.html
Quote:
|
15th February 2019, 10:09 AM | #947 | |||
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
The only person on the planet lonelier than HM:
At least the Maytag repairman doesn't lobby for a murderer. |
|||
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like "Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus |
||||
15th February 2019, 10:14 AM | #948 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
MacDonald did try once to claim ineffective counsel, but Judge Dupree just replied in a legal document that he thought Segal was an astute lawyer, even though both Dupree and Murtagh had out-tricked Segal.
Personally, I think Gary Bostwick was MacDonald's best lawyer in the Joe McGinniss case. He was more of an aggressive criminal attorney, even though he is basically a civil lawyer, and he would have kicked up more of a fuss about the withheld forensic evidence. It would still probably have led nowhere. MacDonald lawyer, the late Eisman, had a thorough grasp of the MacDonald case forensics, unlike Wade Smith, but unfortunately Eisman and Segal were no longer partners after the Article 32 in 1970. |
15th February 2019, 02:54 PM | #949 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Yawn
PACAL: Here ya go.
http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...136-doc057.pdf In addition to the fact that ALL of inmate's evidentiary claims have prosaic explanations, his advocates don't seem to have the ability to keep up with current information on this case. Prime example from one of the Landlord's regurgitated lists. "For example, A brown hair, with root intact, was found under Kimberly's bloody fingernail. This hair did not match MacDonald." COMMENTS: This evidentiary item was a 7mm hair fragment that was found in Kimberley's fingernail scrapings. The only hairs that can be compared under a microscope are head and pubic hairs, so it was impossible to exclude inmate as the source of that hair fragment. In late 1999, FBI hair and fiber expert Robert Fram analyzed the hair fragment and determined that it was animal hair. Case closed. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
16th February 2019, 06:38 PM | #950 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Examples Part Deux
The following claim by Zeszotarski is yet another example of his penchant for constructing fantasy narratives.
"In the early morning hours of 17 February 1970, his pregnant wife and two daughters were murdered in their home on base, and MacDonald was severely injured." http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
17th February 2019, 03:25 AM | #951 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Murtagh's withholding of the exculpatory evidence and making up of the evidence is against the law and something needs to be done about it. Personally, I think it's perverting the course of justice. To suddenly spring on the defense and jury that there were supposed to be pajama fibers on the murder weapon as a surprise, without previously informing the defense about is just plain legal trickery. The matter is discussed at this website:
http://breakdown.myajc.com/law-schoo...olds-evidence/
Quote:
|
17th February 2019, 03:56 AM | #952 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I agree with the poster on this MacDonald forum about MacDonald's injuries:
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/...=158957&page=3
Quote:
|
17th February 2019, 10:56 PM | #953 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Media Whore
It's important to note that Wecht is notorious for playing to the conspiracy crowd. To be candid, his opinions on certain high profile murder cases (e.g., MacDonald, JFK) are laughed at by those who have looked at these cases with a critical eye. In 2005, Wecht appeared on Larry King Live and his commentary on the MacDonald Case was embarrassing.
Retired CID agent Peter Kearns also appeared on LKL and he told Wecht that many of his statements about this case were incorrect. In addition, he reminded Wecht that most of his case knowledge was provided to him by his brother. Kearns reminded Wecht about a phone conversation they had where Wecht admitted that his brother did a majority of the case research. Wecht responded with his usual stammer and stutter routine, and King bailed him out by going to a station break. In essence, Wecht did little in terms of case research and last time I checked, he didn't examine inmate at Womack nor did he conduct the autopsies of Colette, Kimberley, or Kristen. The facts are that... - Upon arrival at Womack Hospital, inmate's vital signs were normal. This was in stark contrast to the scene at 544 Castle Drive where a photographer became physically sick at the gruesome nature of these murders. - Womack ED Physician and personal friend of inmate (e.g., Dr. Bronstein) testified at the Grand Jury hearings that his biggest concern was not inmate's physical health, but his mental state. Bronstein added that he checked inmate's scalp and the back of his head, and he found no bumps, lumps, or contusions. The number and listing of wounds on Jeffrey MacDonald's body was not consistent, so I will only list the wounds that were catalogued by a majority of the physicians who examined him at Womack Hospital. MacDonald sustained bruising over the left eye beneath the hairline, a superficial stab wound of the upper left arm, and a superficial stab wound of the left bicep. He also received a superficial laceration of the left index finger and a superficial stab wound to the left abdomen in the form of an upside down "V." Several small puncture-type wounds were present on the upper left chest. None of the wounds required suturing. A neat and clean stab wound, one-centimeter in length, was located between two ribs on the right side of his chest and resulted in a collapse of the right lung. Compare those wounds with the horrific wounds inflicted upon his pregnant wife and two daughters. This will give you an idea of why CID agents didn't believe a word of inmate's hippie home invader story. http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
18th February 2019, 03:42 AM | #954 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
I agree that Dr. Wecht may not be reliable and he did have some strange beliefs in the JonBenet Ramsey case. It's just that there are varying opinions about the medical evidence in the MacDonald case by people who are medically qualified, including by Dr. MacDonald himself, who was an expert emergency room doctor. This is an opinion about the matter on another MacDonald forum with which I agree:
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/...=158957&page=5
Quote:
|
18th February 2019, 04:18 AM | #955 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
This is a sensible explanation of the injuries Dr. MacDonald had from the Article 32 proceedings in 1970:
http://www.thejeffreymacdonaldcase.c...a32-mason.html
Quote:
|
18th February 2019, 04:14 PM | #956 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Ignoring Reality
The Landlord's obsession with household debris and the mythical narrative regarding inmate's minor wounds is fodder for insults, but I'll stick to the facts.
No matter how inmate's advocates attempt to spin the fiber/hair analysis, the simple fact is that no hair or fiber collected at the crime scene was sourced to a member of the Stoeckley Seven. The best overview of this household debris was put forth by the government in their 5/20/91 supplemental memo. "Nonetheless, we demonstrated that of the synthetic fibers, claimed by petitioner to have been shed from the wig of a female intruder, one originated from a wig owned by Colette MacDonald and the others were used in the manufacture of children's dolls. We also showed that other allegedly exculpatory hair and fiber evidence found in the MacDonald household was nothing more than inconsequential household debris--some of which plainly originated in the MacDonald home--and that it possessed no exculpatory value whatsoever." In terms of inmate's wounds, he had a grand total of one deep penetrating stab wound and a single blunt force wound just below the hairline. The rest of his wounds were slashing type wounds that didn't require any sutures. Compare that to the following wounds inflicted upon his family. Colette MacDonald Colette sustained severe blunt trauma injuries to her head and arms. She was struck at least six times in the head with a blunt object, resulting in lacerations to her right temple, left temple, forehead, and on top of her head. All of these lacerations were deep enough to expose bone. She also received two blows under her chin resulting in extensive bruising to the left front chin area and the right front chin area. There was a small fracture in the midline portion of Colette's skull. The blunt trauma injuries to Colette's arms were defensive-type wounds. Colette's right wrist was fractured and the inner aspect of her upper arm bore an extensive bruise and a superficial abrasion. The fingers and hand of her right arm had extensive black and blue marks associated with abrasions. Her left arm was also fractured in two places. Colette sustained nine deep knife wounds at the front of her neck, seven deep knife wounds to her chest, and 21 puncture wounds to her chest area. Colette's chest also bore a pattern bruise which indicated she had been struck at arm's length by a bayonet-type thrust with the end of a blunt object. Kimberley MacDonald Kimberley was struck at least three times in the head with a blunt object. The first blow resulted in her blood being spattered on the door frame leading to the master bedroom. Kimberley's right cheek, right ear, and right mastoid area had overlapping black and blue marks and irregular abrasions. Her right eye was recessed and she had a fractured nose which was deviated to the right. Her left cheekbone was fractured and a piece of the cheekbone was protruding through the skin. Kimberley's skull showed multiple fractures and the dome portion of her skull was fractured through its entire thickness, and slightly dislocated. Eight to 10 deep knife wounds were found on the right side of her neck. Kristen MacDonald Kristen sustained 12 gaping knife wounds to her upper back, four wounds to the chest, and one wound to the neck. Two of the wounds to her back penetrated her heart, causing massive internal bleeding. Fifteen shallow puncture wounds were found in her chest as well as multiple cuts on both of her hands. There was a through-and-through laceration of the skin involving the middle of the right ring finger. This laceration was deep enough to expose bone and the index finger of the right hand revealed a triangular flap of skin. What more needs to be said? http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com |
19th February 2019, 08:36 AM | #957 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
No, it is not ridiculous.
They had the opportunity it was at this thing called "Trial" that is not true. the information regarding the various wool fibers was included in the material that was provided under discovery. THE FACT THAT BERNIE IGNORED THE INFORMATION IS NOT THE PROBLEM OF NOR THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROSECUTION. Untrue. The defense was given access to the evidence. HOWEVER BERNIE SEGAL DECIDED TO PLAY GAMES IN AN ATTEMPT TO GET EVIDENCE SHIPPED ACROSS THE COUNTRY. (that was never going to happen and a reasonable and responsible lawyer would have known as much). The prosecution provided access to good lab space and full/complete access to all the evidence. It was the DEFENSE fault that they were limited by the time due to Bernie's unsuccessful machinations. ********. there was no deception or "con artist" plan. the prosecution provided all the information. that the defense chose to ignore the evidence is the fault of the defense. Double ********. there is plenty of evidence to PROVE that the family had dark woolen clothing and other items that were the likely source of the fibers INCLUDING THE AFGHAN INMATE CLAIMED HE GOT TOO TANGLED IN TO FIGHT OFF THE ALLEGED INTRUDERS. No, he got rid of the items so that there was no opportunity for anyone to come back and gather them for further investigation. He slaughtered his family and threw their belongings away just as blithely as he had butchered them. ********....the evidence proved him to be guilty and none of it was made up or manufactured. The DNA evidence just further enforces the strength of the case. |
19th February 2019, 08:45 AM | #958 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 899
|
It is not a lie it is the absolute truth and you know it. The 4th Circuit Court and I HAVE read the actual documented evidence. WE do not rely on specious claims made by trolls, and people enamored of a mass murderer.
Judge Dupree had no responsibility for delivering evidence and you know it. He was the Presiding Judge not part of the prosecution. HOWEVER, Murtagh and Blackburn provided the defense with all the necessary materials through the discovery process. there was no withheld evidence in this case. OMG you didn't really write this statement did you? That is beyond ridiculous since the indictment was rendered 9 years prior to trial the defense was very much aware of what inmate had been accused of and they certainly were told before trial. Again the Presiding Judge has no responsibility in the matter of evidence being provided to the defense. Murtagh and Blackburn provided the discovery evidence to the defense HOWEVER they had no responsibility to point out specific evidentiary items. THE FACT THAT BERNIE IGNORED A GREAT DEAL OF THE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IS NOT THE PROBLEM OR RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT< |
19th February 2019, 09:14 AM | #959 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,451
|
May I point out that the evidence you describe has "exculpatory" was not in fact "exculpatory" at all. It was basically almost entirely irrelevant. Although I agree that even if it was exculpatory, given that the Prosecutors had disclosed this evidence to the Defence, they had no obligation to point out it's importance to the defence.
|
19th February 2019, 09:35 AM | #960 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 4,127
|
Black wool fibers with no known source around the mouth of Colette and on the murder weapon is not household debris to my mind and to a lot of other people as well. It's all very well getting emotional about injuries sustained by the victims but there needs to be a calm and cool presentation of the facts instead of just blaming the wrong man. Tell me where and give me a reference where the MacDonald defense were ever informed about the evidence in the case, including the fiber evidence and the hair evidence. They had to find it out for themselves, mostly after the trial. I agree the defense were able to guess about the Stombaugh and Shirley Green blood evidence and pajama folding evidence strategy from the Grand Jury testimony but they were taken by surprise when the jury were informed that there was supposed to be pajama fibers on the murder weapon as the so-called conclusive evidence.
The matter is discussed at this website: http://www.crimearchives.net/1979_ma...ef_amicus.html
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|